SHANTI SWAROOP JAIN Vs. SAGARMAL SHARMA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules are heard together in view of the order dated Dec. 21, 1983 in C.R. No. 3662 of 1983 C R. No 3302 of 1983 is at the instance of the petitioner Shanti Swaroop Jain against the order dated Sept. 24. 1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 406 of 1983 setting aside the order dated Aug. 17, 1983 made by the learned Munsif, 5th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 517 of 1982. The petitioner Shanti Swaroop Jain is the defendant against whom the opposite parties Sargarmal Sharma and Gokulchand Sharma instituted a suit for eviction on the ground of default, reasonable requirement and causing nuisance and annoyance Sagarmal Sharma and Gokulchand Sharma are petitioners in C.R No. 3662 of 1983 and Shanti Swaroop Jain, the defendant, is the opposite party. The alleged in the plaint is that the defendant Shanti Swaroop Jain was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises under the plaintiffs on a monthly rental of Rs. 300.00 plus electric charges at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month.

(2.) The suit was instituted on Oct. 10, 1982. The defendant appeared on Dec. 12, 1982. On Jan. 7, 1983 the defendant filed an application under Sections 17(2) and 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contending that there was no relationship of landlord,and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant further contended that he was a monthly tenant under Messrs Sagarmal Gokalchand on a monthly tenant of Rs. 300.00 including electricity charges. The plaintiffs filed objection against the said petition denying the allegations.

(3.) On June 20, 1983 the defendant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the defendant along with three other tenanas was being supplied with electricity from a meter No. 395046 standing in the name of Gokulchand Prodhan. The plaintiffs stopped payment of electric charges since Nov. 1982 and the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd disconnected the supply to the said meter on June 13, 1983. Immediately after the disconnection of the said meter, the plaintiffs have started supplying electricity to the three other tenants from other meters. The defendant is being deprived of electricity. The defendant thus prayed for mandatory injunction directing the plaintiffs to arrange for restoration of supply of electricity to the suit premises immediately. The plaintiffs objected to the said prayer and contended that the defendant's tenancy was determined and he was no longer a tenant of the suit premises and he was not entitled to mandatory injunction. Electricity is not an amenity attached to the tenancy. The electric meter belonged to Gokulchand Prodhan, a tenant of the plaintiffs, with whom the other tenants might have made arrangement for supply of electricity.